Mike Wuerthele

jhaviland said:

What amazes me is that if I was a UI designer and wanted to create weapons or outfits and sell them on the fortnight platform with my own payment system do you think Epic would allow it? 

Given that they don't compensate kids who have supplied dances to them and are settling a class-action suit about loot boxes with in-game currency, I suspect you already know the answer to this one.

rcfa said:

Any conversion utilities?

Most are long-dead. We'll be evaluating a few places and surviving apps.

sbdude said:

These rules apply to every periodical published for public consumption in the US. This is hardly a limitation on free speech, not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that not all forms of speech are protected. For instance: libel, slander, hate speech during the commission of a crime, speech that incites violence.

Just as newspapers can be taken to task for the "opinions" of its writers, and other editorials that don't rise to a journalistic standard (see: Gawker), it's time for Social Media to take responsibility for the dumpster fires they've created.

Section 230 of the CDA does not apply to "every periodical published for public consumption in the US" in any way.

You are correct about a publication being responsible for opinions of writers published by the venue, but that has nothing to do with 230. In the case of AppleInsider, libel/slander laws apply to some extent to an Editorial that we publish from time to time, and perhaps, with the widest interpretation possible, what staff posts here in the forums.

However, as it stands now, 230 applies to places like the AppleInsider forums, where there is non-staff content on display. I don't disagree that there are many dumpster fires caused by social media, but this legislation won't fix that.

skippingrock said:

How about wi-fi? Does it fix the continuous disconnects from my network that none of my other devices are experiencing?

The release notes say nothing about wi-fi, and we aren't experiencing what you are in this regard, so we can't test it either.

bluefire1 said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

22july2013 said:

I recall an AI admin saying that they would probably abolish these forums if 230 was revoked. Can one of them chime in here to say whether that's still true under this change?

It is still true under this proposal. Wyden is right, Warner is wrong.

It isn't cost-effective to pre-moderate comments. There is no way to make it cost-effective on what is already not a profitable aspect of operations.

You already pre-moderate comments. Anytime there’s even a hint of controversy in any article, we can be sure “Discussion Not Found” will be listed under Comments.

That's not pre-moderation of user-generated content. That's us making a decision that you guys won't follow the forum guidelines, which exist for a reason, so we decide to start with it shut to maintain cost effectiveness of available labor.

In the last year, less than 0.1% of all AI news started with comments shut from the jump. If you count tips, this increases to 0.4%, because of the inane "this is basic, why did you post this?" prevalence of comments, which doesn't help the folks that are actually looking how to do things.

This number has decreased has folks of all political persuasions have been banned. In regards to that ban total, of the population that has been banned, it consists of 51% of commenters with a demonstrable left of center bent, and 49 with a right of center.

Nearly everything starts open, as I have demonstrated. If it becomes cost ineffective to moderate because of forum-goer behavior, we shut it down -- and this can happen very, very quickly. If this reform is passed, then we simply won't have a comment section as we simply don't have the time, manpower, or money to premoderate every single content that is posted. There's a big difference between the two. And, just because you didn't see it open, doesn't mean it didn't start open.